Dr. Miklos Zagoni, Dianna C. Cotter
Abstract:
Earth's Greenhouse Effect is constant and does not rise with human CO2 emissions. That is the main point of Dr Miskolczi's results, called to the attention of the EPA in the 'Endangerment Finding' evaluation process. The EPA could not disprove this or Miskolczi’s results.
_
Recently the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued an “Endangerment Finding” stating that CO2 and 5 other greenhouse gasses constituted a danger to public health and welfare. Many people are not aware that the Obama Administration through the EPA’s finding can now pass through environmental regulations that will force businesses to comply with the changes without going to congress in order to pass Cap and Trade Legislation. With this finding, the Administration could regulate CO2 by dictate from the White House to any degree it chooses.
What is little known is that the EPA held public comment sessions before issuing their finding. By law, the EPA is obligated to respond to substantive comments, and some of those comments cited the Hungarian Physicist who discovered the Law and Constants that describe the Equilibrium of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi in 2004 and 2007 published his work, and to date no Scientific study or authentic peer review (which is to say, something more substantive than random naysayers in the blogosphere whose livelihoods are dependent on the myth of Global Warming not being exposed) has been published which finds Dr. Miskolczi’s work in error.
The EPA itself made several errors in the attempt to understand Miskolczi’s work, and illustrates a number of incorrect arguments that have repeatedly been used in the attempt to discredit the Doctor’s work. We will address these misconceptions here as they are repeated time and again in a show of complete misunderstanding of Miskolczi’s law and constant.
EPA: "The hypothesis that increased CO2 forcing will lead to a counterbalancing decrease in water vapor is highly speculative, and is not supported by the vast body of scientific literature."
Response: “It is not hypothesis, and not speculative at all. It is based on a huge amount of radiative transfer calculations by Dr. Miskolczi's High Resolution Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Code (HARTCODE, 1990), made on the TIGR global radiosonde data archive of the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (Paris, Director Hervé Le Treut, lead IPCC author). Details of the dataset and the results of calculations were published in Miskolczi & Mlynczak (2004). The relations revealed by Miskolczi explicitly were there implicit in the Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 global energy budget, but Miskolczi's computations made them exact and clear. He took those flux relations as equations in his 2007 paper, and calculated the solutions of the new set of energy balance equations. The solution gives a theoretical equilibrium value of the clear-sky greenhouse effect, exactly equal to that given on empirical grounds in Kiehl and Ramanathan (2006).”
EPA: "A climate sensitivity of zero is completely incompatible with historical temperature variations, as it would imply an unchanging climate in direct contrast to historically recorded temperatures changes on all timescales."
Response: “This is a complete misunderstanding. It is the surplus greenhouse temperature (33 degrees Celsius) that does not vary. The basic (or so called effective) temperature (now about 255 Kelvin, or minus 18 Celsius) varied, and is varying, according to the available energy. (This latter term includes the incoming energy from the sun, the effects of solar variations and orbital parameters, cloud and ice coverage, planetary albedo [reflectivity], ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, human industrial heat generation, geothermal heat production etc.). To be precise about the scientific content of Miskolczi's statements, it is the ratio, not the difference, of the surface temperature (now about 288K) to the effective temperature that is an energetically uniquely determined constant. This ratio determines the greenhouse temperature, given the incoming available energy.”
EPA: "Miskolczi also claims that “On global scale, however, there cannot be any direct water vapor feedback mechanism, working against the total energy balance requirement of the system. Runaway greenhouse theories contradict to the energy balance equations and therefore, cannot work.” This demonstrates a lack of understanding of feedback mechanisms in the climate (see response in Volume 4 for a discussion of runaway climate)."
Response: “Their understanding of water vapor feedback is based on only one part of the effects (higher water surface temperatures lead to more evaporation and more greenhouse effect with further increasing temperatures). This is only one loop of the feedback. The other, revealed by the relations found in climate databases by Miskolczi, shows a strict energetic limit of this hypothetical (never happened) runaway feedback. (The case of Venus is absolutely different: closed cloud cover, contrary to Earth's partial overcast, and its atmosphere is almost 100% CO2, whilst we have only 0.04% CO2).
EPA: "there is now evidence for global increases in uppertropospheric specific humidity over the past two decades, which is consistent with the observed increases in tropospheric temperatures and the absence of any change in relative humidity.”
Response: Yes, over the past two decades the NOAA NCEP/NCAR database (as can be seen also in the referred Miskolczi calculation) shows a slight increase in specific humidity, but the first two decades of the database (1948-68) shows a slight decrease, and the middle two decades (1969-1989) displays fairly stable conditions. On the whole 61 years in 1948-2008, there is a very stable atmospheric concentration of the total effective greenhouse gases (1% decrease in integrated water vapor content, and vast increase in CO2 and others). The whole process gives us a very stable 33 degrees Celsius average greenhouse effect, without any definite increase.
To summarize:
EPA's answer only repeats their known position, full with the old unproved hypotheses (positive water vapor feedback, runaway greenhouse effect), without a real understanding of the logic that led to the new results. They do not give new data. The real debate would be if they said: Here are our numbers for the greenhouse effect since 1948, year by year, and here are our equations for the equilibrium value, let's see where the differences might come from. -- But without their numbers, no real discussion is possible.
Miskolczi's numbers remained valid, unchallenged and un-falsified. The 61-yr global average mean greenhouse effect is the same as the theoretical equilibrium value, within 0.1C temperature difference. Nowadays the additional (greenhouse) temperature fluctuates around the 33 Celsius as it did 60 years ago and will do 60 years later, without showing an increasing trend. It is not possible that it grew up to 35 or 38 C, to produce 2 or 5 degrees warming. The EPA did not disprove this.
Comments
D is deleting comments again - looks like someone struck a nerve.
Sweetie this is not politics, this is science. You need to write something in your purported area of "expertise". Trying to pass yourself off as a science wonk just doesn't fly.
Looks like you got an editor, though. No glaring typos or silly spelling mistakes. Remember when you spelled the President's name wrong in your headline and everyone laughed? Remember that whole "principal" fiasco earlier this week? I bet you do. ouch.
How about writing something different. All you write about is birther "quo warranto" non-sense and climate change denial silliness.
We need to find you a new conspiracy sweetie, and maybe a new tin foil hat. The one you have been wearing seems to be cutting off the circulation to your brain.
Thank you Diana for keeping up the fight against the hoax.
And as for the comments....
Looks like Olivia only capable of.....too much bottle blondeness. Stick to watching fashion shows.
Have a glass of koolaid Olivia. Oh never mind you already did.
For those interested in science:
kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
Good work Dianna. Keep it up!
PS: Olivia goes by many names. Her whole purpose in life is harrassment. What a calling huh?!
Interesting Article Dianna, thanks! Just ignore Olivia, or whatever name is being used today.
One thing that I find interesting in all of this AGW stuff is the continual use of positive feedback systems. If one thinks about them, they are not possible. Kind of like perpetual motion. In a positive feedback system, a little increase in an input causes the output to increase more. Positive feedback systems are unstable because there is nothing that can restrain a run away system. For example if CO2 causes temp to go up, and when the temp goes up the oceans release more CO2, then the little bit of CO2 becomes a massive amount of CO2 and the temperature keeps going up until all of the CO2 is released. However, seasonal variations of temperature should already cause this ocean CO2 to turn the planet into quite a hot spot. But the seasons don't. A positive feedback system in the real world would quickly run into a rail and be pegged there. <more>
<continuing> Positive feedback systems are therefore not what govern climate. This is what makes Miskolczi's work so interesting. In this work, he has explained what has truly been ignored by the fake scientists of the IPCC, CRU, NASA, et al, that is the effect of the sun and how the planet actually has a negative feedback system by which it stabilizes itself. There are quite a few variable inputs, as I mentioned before, most predominately, the seasons which are caused dramatically by the tilt of the earth and to a smaller extend, the variation in distance to the sun.
Great articles Dianna, keep up the good work in bring to light the truth. It is clear that the obots just don't get it because progressives are all knowing. Progressives are very evil people. Truth is their enemy and the more we can shine the light of truth on them the more they will be shown for the evil they are.
"Unable to disprove"?
I dare say that "proving a negative" is a logical impossibility. As you can see, Barton Paul Levenson offered counter evidence to Miskolczi in 2008.
bartonpaullevenson.com/Miskolczi.html
I concur with Olivia. Try the new Reynolds Wrap with the "Release" feature. The added silicone improves ray deflection. It's also good for baking cookies.
Obot Dave - did you actually read the article you posted? Well guess what, in point number 1 the author is wrong about Kirchhoff's law. Since I happen to actually be an engineer and have had to actually use this stuff to do real work, I thought it would be useful to check your reference.
In point number 2, the Levenson argument appears to be based on another erroneous proposition, that the system of the earth is closed and that inputs are constant. There are plenty of cycles to show that the inputs are not constant and so, simply, number 2 is also wrong.
On number 3, it appears that Levenson follows the same argument posted by others in dismissing the virial theorem argument. In point of fact, there are a number of examples of systems that support the reasoning of Miskolczi and the use of the virial theorem. It is typical of those who play gotcha to stop at the first item that gets what they like and not read further, kind of like you obot-dave.
Obot DaveM... How do you explain the fact that Miskolczi's theory gets rid of the temperature discontinuity at the surface? We know that the original Eddigton equations cause a theoretical problem at the surface that is not observed in practice?
So Miskolczi's theory fits the data better than the existing theory.... It must be wrong! (LOL)
Olivia... your desperation is showing....
Olivia. Your point being?
I'm happy accepting the preponderance of scientific evidence. If you're happy with a single (independent) contrarian view to the preponderance of evidence, then I'd have to say good luck with that.
You don't need to be a rocket surgeon to connect rapid climate change to disappearing glaciers and polar ice caps
ObotDave is once again making stupid statements. This is NOT the only argument against man made climate change. It's one of hundreds maybe thousands. It doesn't matter to Dave that the polar icecaps have been growing for the last couple of years. He says they are shrinking so that makes it so. It doesn't matter that all the planets in the solar system have had the same warming and cooling patterns as the Earth, the UN says the sun has no impact on climate so it must be so. It doesn't matter that the 'global warming' scientists (?????) were caught manipulating data to suit their money and power grab. It doesn't matter that the carbon trading system was set up by Al Gore and Ken Lay. The elite who fly around on their private planes and are by far the biggest polluters say it is so, therefore it must be. Give me a break.
Obot you are quite simply an idiot. You accept as evidence falsified data? You accept as evidence collusion? You accept as evidence the lies made for profit? You accept as evidence the proselytizing claims by those with no scientific background of any sort (gore)? Preponderance of evidence? Are you stupid or a green zealot?
And you can't even get the metaphor correct. Jeeze, it is a Rocket Scientist or it is a Brain Surgeon.
You know about those disappearing glaciers? There are man made reasons that they are disappearing, but it is not AGW!!! When the forests around Kilimanjaro are cleared, the humidity has fallen and there is no longer the replenishing snowfall to keep the glacier as it was. Yes, that is man, no it is not CO2!!!
Obot - I have no use for you. You are as worthless as that stupid Mikey the progressive examiner. Just like him, you are a pompous buffoon who does not understand the underlying facts. You believe, because you are a dupe.
John: You may want to watch the accusations of "not understanding underlying facts", given that your first post demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how the term "positive feedback" is used in climate. Yes, increased CO2 leads to increased temperature which leads to increased CO2+H2O which leads to more increased temperature. But because of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, outgoing radiation increases as temperature to the fourth power. So as long as the positive feedback is below a critical threshold (and no serious scientist claims that it is above that threshold) then the system is stable.
Think infinite series: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... is not infinite. It is 2. At the moment, the best estimate of feedback is that the total warming due to a doubling of CO2 is about 3 times the CO2-only warming. Also not infinite.
Sadly, Miskolczi is similarly confused. About many things. Google "realclimate" and Miskolczi for a series of rebuttals.
Go read the felon Soros' web site realclimate if you want some more dis-information from a convicted financial criminal who made money as a boy stealing from the Jews for the Nazi's. Google 'Soros criminal France'.
Nice grammar and spelling mistakes yourself, Olivia.
Moron.
John: You may want to watch the accusations of "not understanding underlying facts", given that your first post demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how the term "positive feedback" is used in climate. Yes, increased CO2 leads to increased temperature which leads to increased CO2+H2O which leads to more increased temperature. But because of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, outgoing radiation increases as temperature to the fourth power. So as long as the positive feedback is below a critical threshold (and no serious scientist claims that it is above that threshold) then the system is stable.
Think infinite series: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... is not infinite. It is 2. At the moment, the best estimate of feedback is that the total warming due to a doubling of CO2 is about 3 times the CO2-only warming. Also not infinite.
Sadly, Miskolczi is similarly confused. About many things. Google "realclimate" and Miskolczi for a series of rebuttals.
Tyndall - what you have described is not a positive feedback system. Although, I will grant you that if the scientists in the "climate" system are redefining an established term to mean something else, then you would be right in me not understanding.
However, your reply shows your ignorance. Modeling systems via simulations is something I have also been doing for more than 35 years. It is not a positive feedback system if a component of the system can cause the system to regulate to equilibrium. And, you can't use one component of the system to judge the full range of a system when you have already shown that there is more than one component that regulates.
I can't believe you think realclimate is a serious source. It has articles by proven lairs - James Hanson for one. These people falsified data. If you believe realclimate you are an idiot.
As for Miskolczi, did you read the supporting arguments? I have read both, and I see Miskolczi's case to have merit.
Nice grammar and spelling mistakes yourself, Olivia.
Moron.
The Obot's keep recycyling the same old lies. They are not interested in science or the planet, they twist and lie about the facts to further their national socialist agenda.
Tyndall: Do not write 'facts' like this: "outgoing radiation increases as temperature to the fourth power...". People will get really confused. You should read the 'Climate Book' of
R. Pierrehumbert (RC radiation guru). No matter how bad he is with the Kirchhoff's law, he takes the Stefan-Boltzmann law right. In case you have read and understood my papers, and you have something to say about the infrared absorption optical depth of our planet please do so. Or, you may just line up with these 'scientists' who promised to say something reasonable about this and I am still waiting for that: R. Pierrehumbert, and his super-students, G. Smith, E. Rabett or P.Levenson.
Note, that the AGW is defeated because 30 percent increase in co2 in the last 61 years is coupled with constant infrared atmospheric absorption. The reasons why it is constant is irrelevant. Perhaps you may pay carbon tax to your honest government voluntarily…
Here we go, this house of cards is falling fast. The UN should start Climate Hoax trials.
"UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning"
hxxp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
John, if you don't get the 'rocket surgeon' reference, you obviously have not been hanging out with real research scientists or engineers the last decade or so.
Which calls into question your claim of being an engineer.
Snark - I don't care if you don't think I get a pop reference because some stupid and evil progressive wants to be clever. The joke was lame, like he who made it.
I, for one, am really tired of the pompous liberals who think they are the superior race.
Oh, and by the way, I am an engineer and have been one for more than three decades. Engineers do real work, unlike the fake climate science. I get paid to design and build stuff. I don't "hang out" with fake people, researchers or progressives. I am a proud conservative.
So Snark - Bite Me...
Anyone hwo quotes anything Scinec fromm th Real Climate weblog for evidence is beyond stupid. This paid for web by Al Gore's associates, has nothing to do with scientific reality except to give a patina of respectability, to whole sale lying.
Gavin Schmidt and his RC, is paid toolfor the AGW rentiers and has made a fine living doeing so.
The purposeful crucifixion by the paid tools at RC of the work of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi has to have been experienced to be believed. I saw it in detail; Continuous, purposeful misunderstanding, and criticism of nits, but purposeful non addressing of the fundamental research, confirming empirical research evidence, ERBE satellite data, or the central thesis.
As a scientist/engineer I solved the differential radiation equations and verified myself Miskolczi's solutions that corrected erroneous earlier results of Milne in 1922. This has never been questioned.
I think the efforts expended on the destruction of Dr. Miskolczi and his work, rivals any of the dirty deeds documented in Climategate. I would love to see a domestic FOIA of the emails of the various tools of RC, in conjunction with other members of the Climategate 'Team'.
I have searched and searched for the chunk of Outer Space discontinuity, that must exist between my toes and the soles of my feet, as Milne's answer in radiation theory requires. I can't find it.
You can do so this experiment too. If you look between your toes and the soles of your feet too, and can't find a chunk of Outer Space vacuum, then Milne's postulated and required separation of the atmosphere, from the Earth, is shown to be wrong.
Current standard radiation theory is unable to calculate the temperature of the Earth's surface. That is a glaring embarrassment. But using radiation equations, that connect the Earth's surface to the atmosphere, correctly calculates the temperature of the Earth's surface. But then the atmosphere has all the runaway GHGs, in the Ocean, it would ever need to runaway; but it didn't. Or rather it did, but billions of years ago, to settle at a saturated GHG state that Miskolczi says happened, at the level of what we see today.
Nah, John - but you demonstrate quite well your own knee-jerk biases by dismissing anyone whose degree was earned after your glorious days at Boll Weevil A&M.
Now show us your pocket protector and slipstick and grunt like a good C.E., then go design some other way to waste of taxpayers' money with built-in obsolesence.
Snark - you have no idea what my educational background is nor what fields I have practiced engineering in. Who is dismissive? Look in the mirror.
So snark, since you claim to be such a bright boy, you can deconstruct Miskolczi's paper for us and tell us where Dianna's article got it wrong. No, you can not just declare that "the science is settled" or that "realclimate" says this or that. Rather, we all want to hear you tell us how the science is wrong, your own words. How about it?
While you are at it, check out:
www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
This gets better every day. Hahahahaha
UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report
hXXp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece
John,
Don't you realize that debating facts and knowledge is not part of the 'Alinsky method'. You have backed snark into a corner. I mean c'mon the man has enough trouble stringing a few sentences together. You expect him to participate in an intelligent debate. Get real.
Mitch - you are so right... I sometimes forget I am arguing with an moronic progressive (I think that is an oxymoron...)
Aw, john-boy, I actually DO discuss the rather complex issues of climate at places where folks who can hold intelligent debates about it hang out.
But at the site of a self-proclaimed online student who believes birther inanity? Nahhhhhhhhhhh.....
But why doncha Google 'rocket surgeon' so you can at least pretend to be in the know?
I must admit, though, that it amuses me and those who know me to see all the knee-jerkers calling me 'progressive.'
Snark - I did google rocket surgeon, was not aware of the meaning. It certainly is not a phrase used by real scientists and engineers. Seems like such a dismissive term, and it just seems the progressives are the dismissive types. The term rocket scientist seems to fit you to a t though ... You have not discussed any of the issues here and all you do is insult. Yup, it fits...
Tell me where you go to discuss these issues. I'd like to judge for myself the ability you claim to handle an intellectual discussion.
Pretty sure you won't say where...
Mayhaps you should next google 'snark' before whinging about my commentary?
Ain't like I didn't pick an appropriate nom de 'net.
Where??? Ahhhhhh... search some. li'l john... Snark posts as Snark, although generally without the snark on those discussions.
So snarky when are you going to deconstruct Miskolczi's paper? This should be a slam dunk for statist's. Haven't the alarmist's over in jolly old England published proper talking points yet? Feel free to cut and paste them here.
Cheerio!
Ah, li'l scotty - another knee-jerker who assume Snark is a 'statist' (however he defines it).
Deconstruct? Oh, maybe when I have the time to program his math in Fortran on the ol' CP/M machine. But generally, I have better things to do - although I note ignores demonstrated effects by land use changes.
Then again, it might help if someone actually linked to the original paper rather than 'explanations' of what it means.
SnarkATTF - your true colors are showing. You think you are clever, you think you are acerbic, you think you are snarky. Nope, you are nothing more than an Alinsky tool/troll/fool.
SnarkATTF - your name from now on...
Poor john-boy, still trapped in that tiny worldview were anyone who doesn't bow to his inate superiority must therefore be a tool of the demon de jour.
sorry, bucko, but I find it difficult to take seriously the scientifically illiterate and legally ridiculous ravings by a self-professed 'civil rights examiner' who I have yet to see post anything actually concerning civil rights.
The same goes double for her sychophantic twits.
SnarkATTF - your attempts at cleverness are really sad. I was going to say lame, but it is truly sad. Lame would be a description to use if you just didn't seem to understand. You just avoid answering the questions. If you give what appears to be an answer, it is to a question that was not asked. You see, that makes you useless to everyone here, except Dianna. You actually are a great benefit to Dianna and I hope you keep it up. No, don't want to see you stop posting. But you don't know why that is, or do you? So by staying with the personal insults, continuing to harp on the title of her blog, you show your own ignorance of the definition of words. Try doing a little research yourself on what Civil Rights are and you will find that a great portion of the articles posted by Dianna are true to the definition. Go ahead, self proclaimed superior one, read about what Civil Rights are and back up your assertions...
BTW, it is fun toying with you, thanks!
Aw, she can have her pennies... gotta pay those college bills somehow, I'm sure.
Besides, it all comes out of the pocket of one of the most fanatically anti-liberty theo-fascists out there, so what the heck? (You DO know who owns examiner.com, right?)
And you really need to work on your reading comprehension; I'm the one who accused you of the supreiority complex.
But Civil Rights? Gimme a break. I've yet to see a single thread on the Second Amendment, illegal wiretapping, the Patriot Act, or even a discussion on such traditional topics as affirmative action and set-asides.
Instead, we get birther nonsense (how those cort cases working out?) and a fanatic adherence to climate change denial at least as bad as that of the discredited warmers. (Steady state is a crock - just ask those folks living in the tropical, water-rich paradise of the Sahara 7,000 years ago.)
And yeah, I need new eyeglasses. I can spell fine, but my typing is lousy and I don't always catch it. So there! LOL
SnarkATTF - gee, I have found some articles from Dianna on 2nd Amendment stuff. I will agree that the search capabilities of this site are poor, but I found them nonetheless. Just because you can't find them does not mean they don't exist.
As for reading comprehension, I was referring to your dismissive comments, ending with where you refer to the sycophantic twits. See, in an argument, the name calling looks to everyone else that you think you are the superior one. It is the descent out of an intellectual discussion into ad hominem statements that is the proof.
Just observations...
SnarkATTF, thanks again!
Ahhhhhhhhhhh... achtung! Herr Anschutz, I presume, hiding behind that 'John'?
it all makes sense now.... only someone like you could ever consider me a left-wing radical. LOL
I was wondering when/where your li'l head would finally appear.
Now go beef up the neo-nazi rhetoric on Herman's site; it's been getting quiet over there of late.
SnarkATTF - what on earth are you talking about?
I really, truly have no clue to the references you made in that last post.
Who is Anschutz? Neo-Nazi?
It seems I was wrong about you, you are a loonie! Take your meds. What a nut-job you are. And you think the rest are crazy? Wow, I am simply amazed.
Boo - did that scare you...
Wow, you are certifiable. You have just discredited absolutely everything you have written here. For a while your snarky attitude got you through the lack of credibility, but this last post of yours is hilarious.
You did to yourself what no reply from anyone could ever do. You shut yourself down! And the best part is that I think you really meant it. Wow, what a post!!!
Thanks SnarkyATTF, you made my day!
Wow, and come to think about it, since you always want the last word, how can you top this? Boy o boy, I am waiting in eager anticipation...
LMMFAO... So you have NO idea who is the Big Money behind examiner.com, 'john?' So you therefore admit to being another dupe??
Ok, for discussion sake, we'll accept your claim that you are an engineer. If so, you undoubtedly are familiar with 'tolerance stackup' yes?
Can you explain how it may apply to climate science?
John,
I wouldn’t waste your time arguing with the snark-tooth pussy cat. Somehow he has confused you with another author on examiner.com. The man is a delusional liar. He advocated the killing of impoverished children in Yemen as a justified pre-emptive attack. Then he calls you a neo-Nazi. He calls Dianna illiterate yet can’t put a cognitive sentence together. (i.e. “nah”, “Ahhhhhh”, “li’l “) He has claimed to be a government big shot in another thread. This claim I do believe however, since he lacks any semblance of intelligence.
Mitch - SnarkATTF is a loonie. I am fascinated how he is unable to handle when his attempts at snarky-ness fail. He has imploded. He is a complete and utterly useless fool. His comments are laughable and he is irrelevant. He has placed himself into this position and he is now only useful as a toy.
SnarkyATTF, since you asked a question, yes, I do know what a tolerance stack up. It is quite important in our optical work. However, I am still waiting for you to give your deconstruction of the work of Miskolczi. But you can't seem to do that. Hmmm, wondering why...not...
Frankly, I don't care who is the "big money". As for a dupe, I would have to be deceived to be a dupe and your deception has clearly failed and there is no deception the owner of this blog has perpetrated on me. If you can post here, it seems anyone can, so it is sane to loonies.
Thanks again snarkATTF, you weren't as silly this post as the last, but still a little bit...
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!